Compile-time options (was Re: Forks?) (was Re: Tight VNC)

Illtud Daniel illtud.daniel "at"
Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:01:12 +0000

Andrew van der Stock wrote:


Great idea - I would support this.


> Anyway, forking code bases is not necessarily bad. Different products for
> different needs works okay (ie Palm code base has different aims to a
> Windows code base (simple features, small and very efficient code size,
> extreme compression needs vs feature rich, object size doesn't really matter
> , speed of display is important). As long as everyone moves to the 5.0
> protocol quickly my security concerns will be assuaged.

And Brian Blevins said:

> As far as AT&T integrating the Tight encoding, I doubt that
> will happen.  They seem to have come to the conclusion that
> hextile achieves a sort of optimum for CPU usage versus
> level of compression.  Of course, a brief comment from
> someone at AT&T would be much preferrable to my musings.

Again, I ask: why aren't all these options and platforms compile-
time options? Is it because of win* people just not having any
concept/experience of this? How about modularizing encoding and
the like, then? Forking isn't always bad, but forking into one
project per binary is madness!

Illtud Daniel                                 illtud.daniel "at"
Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau                       Senior Systems Analyst
Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru                  National Library of Wales
Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC   -  Speaking personally, not for NLW
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to majordomo "at"
See also: